# WMAP Results

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by chroot, Feb 25, 2003.

1. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
I not only knew that, it’s what I’ve claimed throughout this thread. You’re agreeing with me now. Light does not appear to travel at the same speed, c, to all observers, unless it’s measured locally. The resolution to the paradox is: You at the top of the building measure the speed of light along the ground at 0.5c, in concordance with the slower clock there. When you see A throw the switch, two microseconds will have elapsed on your clock when you see B’s watch stop. B’s watch will show one microsecond elapsed as B expects.

3. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
HOW CAN YOU MEASURE IT IF NOT LOCALLY? BY DEFINITION, YOU CAN'T.
If you knew the answer all along, then why are polluting my WMAP thread with this crap? Go away!

- Warren

5. ### synergyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
143
I agree. Any SIMPLE thought experiment isn't likely to refute relativity, at least not head-on, anyway. Let's get on with good science.

7. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Are you saying a measurement cannot be made from afar? I think that is done quite often. The height of Mt. Everest was not measured with a ruler.

Recap: You started this tangent in response to my suggestion about dark energy, which directly applied to the WMAP results. There are still relevant questions from me to you unanswered.

8. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Nobody was trying to do that here. The thought experiment applies to the suggestions I gave to explain dark energy and dark matter. Chroot and others could not appreciate my arguments if they believed the speed of light appears to travel at the same speed, c, to all observers, even those who measure it from afar.

9. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Not in relativity. A measurement in one reference frame is independent of a measurement in another. Through your reference frame, your apparatus will always detect the speed of light as c. You can't directly measure the speed of light that does not go through your reference frame.
I asked you to do a little work to show quantitatively how either gravitational time dilation or gravitational slingshotting could explain dark energy. In response, you went off on your paradox rant.

- Warren

10. ### synergyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
143
zanket,

I understand. You might have a point, although Stephen Hawking and others would probably have thought of it and tried to prove/disprove it ... and having proven your ideas were possible, they would publish and we would now know about them. Still, it's possible for experts to overlook simple things sometimes... so you might have a point, really. I doubt it, though.

11. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
zanket,

If light really was being lensed around all kinds of matter in the universe, wouldn't it randomize it thoroughly, so we couldn't tell where an individual photon came from?

If so, wouldn't we just see a giant smear of light? Why do we see indepedent, high-contrast galaxies even at very large distances?

- Warren

12. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
OK, that’s a good way to put it.

The work on gravitational time dilation I’ll get to. The tangent started with you, here:

There was no rant from my end.

Excellent thought. I’ll think about that.

13. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Okay, I slipped a bit in my precision here -- my apologies. In any event, the concept that light's speed is changed by gravity (in any reference frame) is unsupported -- which is why I said this.

Can we stop arguing about relativity, and resume discussing WMAP?

Some people are interested in the CMBR rest frame, for example.

- Warren

14. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Sure the odds are against my ideas being valid. I even prefaced my dark energy idea with the comment that I hadn’t spent much time on it. Still, relativity was formulated by a patent clerk, and small ideas can lead to large ideas.

15. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Sure. I’ll come back when I’ve done some math on the rigid rotation curves.

16. ### synergyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
143
As I said, and meant, you may have a valid point, patent clerk or not. good luck, I'm going to go visit other threads mostly for now. Like the "prime numbers" thread - check it out.

17. ### GundamWingRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
367
CHROOT

So, back to dark matter and WMAP...

If dark matter emits no light, does it at least 'interact' with light in any way? (all jokes aside, does it actually 'suck light'? what about 'matter'? for something to be truly dark, it must either (1) suck light, or (2) be transparent to light so that light cannot 'see it'). Or is it possible that 'light' bends completely around 'dark matter' and just skirts by?

Also, does the E=mc^2 relation hold for dark matter/energy?

Any ideas/knowledge? :m:

18. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Attached is my math that shows there is a way.

Last edited: Feb 28, 2003
19. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
I simplified the spreadsheet in the attachment above and added a chart.